Comments on: “What’s the problem?”http://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/
The Contemporary Classical Music CommunitySat, 04 Oct 2014 21:28:37 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: Rodney Listerhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13531
Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:49:56 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13531Well, of course, when people started wearing tuxes, the people in the audience were wearing them, too. There’s, of course, no reason why anybody should these days, except, I guess the idea that if everybody’s dressed alike, no one person is a distraction. I’m not sure, nonetheless, that anybody really particularly cares about that one way or the other.

As to clapping between movements–it was a reverence thing, of course, and no reason to maintain that either. Nobody particularly worries about it, though, either (except maybe after the third movement of the Pathetique Symphony, where, even if the applause is built in, it’s somehow annoying when it happens, particularly if it disturbs the beginning of the last movement. Maybe Tschaikovsky just gets his just desserts for trying to come up with some fancy conceptual trick, though). Since there was a tradition in, say, Mozart’s, Haydn’s, Beethoven’s time for clapping after a particularly rousing movement, I sort of like it when people do that.

It is possible to regard all of these things as ritualistic, elitist oppression of some sort, but mostly they had pretty sensible reasons for coming into being, and, like many conventions, there’s no particular reason to get exercised about them (unless or until they start to take a life of their own more than what they were supposed to be accompaniment or facilitation to). I do, however, get annoyed when my attention is distracted from something I want to listen to, especially in a situation where that’s presumably what we’re all there for. And, actually, walking out on something is pretty insulting, and, once again, distracting; I presume that when it happens that is the message, since after all, you can always take a book and read (as long as you turn the pages quietly).

]]>By: Steve Laytonhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13530
Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:26:34 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13530[Hate to break the thread, but this quick public service announcement for Galen et al: The alternative to the spam blockers is an endless stream of Russian porn site postings and “Hi guys, great site!” with malicious links, that takes pretty much a full-time person to police & delete.

My advice: just before you press “submit”, select all the text of your post and click “copy”. If anything screws up the first time, you only have to click “paste” in the text-box, and your post will be there again for the second try (which generally always goes through).

One other caveat: comments with multiple url links will almost always be shunted to the “wait for moderation” queue, so try to have no more than one url link in a comment if at all possible. Any more comments, questions, gripes about the spam blockers, please email me, Jeff or Jerry, rather than fill up this thread.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming…]

]]>By: Kyle Gannhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13529
Fri, 21 Dec 2007 00:01:24 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13529In response to Rodney and others, I didn’t mean to imply that, “sitting still and listening” being only about 200 years old as a social practice, that there was anything wrong with it. For me, Gavin’s points are very well taken, and well expressed. It seems there’s something not quite “natural” about sitting still and mentally following instrumental music – but there is no reason at all to content ourselves with what is “natural,” as though we were savages, and all the reason in the world to develop our perceptual faculties as far as they’ll go in any direction. It may be worth remembering, though, that, as a relatively recently developed paradigm, “sitting still and listening” is still a rather fragile one, and needs all the help it can get.
]]>By: Galen H. Brownhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13528
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:49:31 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13528I’m glad we’re not seeing much spam, but I think it’s a significant problem that one of the spamblocking solutions routinely causes people to lose their work.

Also, I don’t think anybody’s saying that sitting still and paying attention is elitist in itself. It’s the telling people that that’s the only legitimate way that’s elitist. But you’re right that many of the things that have been tried either don’t work or can’t replace the current model.

]]>By: Steve Laytonhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13527
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:51:15 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13527[Galen, we’re running three different spam protectors now, so once in a while you might get a message. But they’re doing a mostly good job of letting legitimate posts through.]

I’m with Rodney; I don’t find anything elitist about the “sit still and pay attention” necessary for so much art music. It is what it is; tampering with that isn’t being true to the ethos of the work itself. And I’m with Jeff in hoping the work and playing itself should have enough quality to command some of that attention. And I’m with Walter when he rails against the truly elitest detrius the art-music concert has accumulated above and beyond the primary respect and attention this music often intends. And I’m with the many that think that either the “be-in” or “bells and whistles” approach can’t be used for the whole shebang.

]]>By: Galen H. Brownhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13526
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:10:10 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13526Hm, was a change in spam protection made between the time when I tried and failed to post the first time and then pasted it in and wrote my PS on the second attempt? I’ve never seen that moderator message before. If so, horray!
]]>By: Galen H. Brownhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13525
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:06:47 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13525Let me see if I can clarify my thinking about the Respect issue a little. It may be that I simply chose the wrong word — I’m talking about a level of respect that’s similar to reverence. Most traditions expect you to treat the music and the audience and musicians with a minimum of respect, and that minimul level is generally based on the idea that you should give the music a chance. In a rock club, once you’ve given the music a chance if you aren’t into it you can hang out with your friends, or hit the bar, or just leave and come back later. Any attention beyond giving it a chance is expected to be earned by the music and the musicians on a case-by-case basis. You keep your freedom and your autonomy.

The trappings of the classical concert over the past 50 years or so have been set up to demand attention on the presumption that the music _deserves_ that attention, and that if you don’t see it that way you it’s because you’re wrong and so you need to be forced to pay attention. Everything comes with an air of presumed “greatness,” and the atmosphere is one worship. And several of the practices we’re talking about are designed to hold you prisoner — changing the channel on your TV set or leaving the rock club during somebody’s set is perfectly normal, but in the classical concert hall “walking out” has been elevated to an insult or a statement of protest.

So for each tradition we need to ask why.

Why does the orchestra perform in tuxedoes? Two reasons, both bad. First, Classical music is presumed to be an upper class affair, so the musicians need to be dressed like waiters. Second, the music is presumed to be great, borderline holy, and so the musicians need to dress up out of respect to the Art.

Why don’t you clap between movements? Because the music is a holy relic, not to be disturbed.

Why don’t we sell advertising space on the stage? Because the music is sacred and commercialism is profane, and never the twain shall meet (except at the box office, of course).

The sucky 20 minute solo euphonium piece that Jeff postulates gets placed into this context because as a piece of “classical music” it is presumed to deserve it.

P.S. Can we get different Spam protection? Every time I write a nice long respose I get accused of being a spammer and lose my work.

]]>By: Anthony Cornicellohttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13524
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:58:15 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13524Jeff,
I’m not sure if I agree with your comparison to the live CDs of Trane and Miles. First of all, you’re dealing with a much different time period (okay, Miles’ live recordings go up to 1992). More importantly, audiences routinely interact with jazz and pop musicians. As a matter of fact, I can definitely find examples of audiences cheering on a soloist, or even loud exclamations during a solo. The key is, there was interaction going on! (I’d love to see that at a new music concert – people cheering the players on like they were jazzers. Imagine hearing, after a soloistic passage, “play it, brother!”)

Audiences are not expected to be interactive these days. They’re expecting things to be force-fed to them, told what to like, when to clap, laugh, etc. They’re not expecting to think much. And, they’re not expecting to sit still. (Odd aside: I recently had a conversation with someone who told me about some Buddhist monks who mediate for 18 hours at a time.) And the mode of interaction is different: follow along with the music, make connections in your mind to what you’ve heard before. Sure, it’s easier to do in a Beethoven piece than, say, Babbitt, and it’s one of the reasons for the immense popularity of minimalism: you can follow it.

I’m not sure where the blame lies: television, the lack of music education in the schools, the co-modification of music (and the arts) to the lowest common denominator, the fact that we’re a nation of over-worked and burnt out individuals, or something else.

]]>By: Mikhail Emelianovhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13523
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:48:28 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13523i have recently attended Met’s HD Broadcast and because it was at a regular movie theater and i skipped breakfast i got myself a couple of hot dogs and a coke – now i have to say that the only way to watch opera, from now on i will be sneaking in dogs into an actual opera performance – let’s see what happens…
]]>By: jeff harringtonhttp://www.sequenza21.com/2007/12/whats-the-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-13522
Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:03:53 +0000http://www.sequenza21.com/index.php/647#comment-13522I still think we’re missing an important point and I think that I probably didn’t express myself well earlier to boot. Truly detailed, intensely executed acoustic music typically produces audience quiet automagically.

Take for example a truly great jazz performance. Ever heard a live recording of say Miles or Coltraine? There’s often NO audience noise. Billy Holiday live recordings? No audience noise. Sure there’s some intense shouts every now and then, but what there isn’t is people talking in the background. (We get those same effects in superb opera performances often, too)

I don’t mean to suggest that those live recording environments are special – sure – they’re often warned by the producer – ‘We’re making a live recording so STFU… etc…’

My point is that the music itself should produce the audience/cultural norms. These classical/newmusic concerts we’re talking about often produce discomfort in many parts of the audience because they’re experiencing something they don’t often experience in a live concert they’ve paid for – intense boredom.

We program to showcase, to sell, to promote some dude’s music that promoted our music, not to blow audiences away. And then, frankly, and especially in new music concerts we don’t rehearse enough, so not only is the piece badly sequenced/programmed, but the mixed bag plus a mediocre performance plus you have to STFU? So we’ll have one or two interesting piece and then a 20 minute solo euphonium piece that SUCKS!

It’s enough to make someone not want to go to concerts at all, which is one reason I keep saying, the iPod is the venue now. Not the concert hall, but that’s besides the point. If our concerts weren’t so intensely boring most of the time, people would be happily quiet. Not unhappily quiet. They’d want to be quiet so they could feel just how blown away they’ve become.

That’s the goal. Not changing cultural norms. To blow audiences away so severely that they want to be quiet. They want to be quiet – for themselves. That is, until they become so unhinged that they have to shout… ‘WOW!’